LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
The Legal Reckoning of Reality Television: Contestant Rights and Producer Responsibilities
No full textReality television has become a dominant force in modern entertainment. Behind the scenes, however, contestants face serious legal and ethical concerns. Many reality TV participants allege exploitative working conditions, misleading contracts, and inadequate compensation. Traditionally, networks classify contestants as independent contractors, exempting them from labor protections such as minimum wage and overtime pay
The Resurgence of the RAP Act: Why Industry Professionals Enthusiastically Support This Bill
No full textArtists release music and write songs to create art, not to offer any sort of criminal confession. Yet, dating back to a 1996 criminal trial involving Snoop Dogg, artists’ lyrics have been admissible as evidence in criminal and civil trials. Most recently, rapper Young Thug, was accused of being the head of a violent gang based solely on lyrics from his songs as evidence. His case sparked nationwide controversy regarding the constitutionality of his lyrics being admitted as key evidence at trial. The rapper’s popular music collective known as “Young Stoner Life,” was posited by prosecutors to actually be a violent Atlanta gang known as “Young Slime Life.” Young Thug’s attorney proclaimed that prosecutors were “targeting the right to free speech, and that’s wrong.” To date, there have been more than 820 instances identified in which an artist’s creative works have been used in criminal trials
Cardozo’s Sports Law Society and Antitrust Society Host House Settlement Lecture and Panel
No full textPanelists for the event: Professor Marc Edelman, Bob Boland (Partner, Shumaker LLP), Michael Hsu (Co-founder, College Basketball Players Association), Adam Dale (Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP), Neha Vyas (Associate, Winston & Strawn LLP), Paul McDonald (Managing Partner, PL McDonald Law LLC), and Chris Brolley (Associate, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP).
On Wednesday, November 12, 2025, Cardozo’s Sports Law Society and Antitrust Society hosted a lecture and panel discussion regarding the implications of the House v. NCAA lawsuit and settlement. This included the potential for future antitrust liability as a result of the settlement, Title IX implications, the employment status of college athletes, and more. The event was titled “THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS: HOUSE v. NCAA Sports & Antitrust Law Panel.” Registration for 2 New York State CLE credits were available, and the lecture and panel were followed by a networking reception
The Gift of a Golden Voice : Shaping the Right of Publicity to Protect Performers from A.I. Abuses
No full textThe note explores the evolving nature of the right of publicity, a unique area of intellectual property and privacy law that protects individuals\u27 control over their likeness and persona. It examines the challenges posed by emerging technologies, particularly AI-generated content, and advocates for a balanced approach that integrates elements from trademark and copyright law while respecting First Amendment rights. The analysis emphasizes the need to protect performers\u27 rights to their public image without undermining established legal frameworks
NFL Commissioner-Driven Arbitration Versus Other Sports League Arbitration Procedures
No full textFormer Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores and two other former NFL coaches filed a punitive class action in Manhattan federal court against the NFL in 2022, alleging the league engages in racially discriminatory hiring and retention practices. The NFL moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the provision in its employee contract that incorporates the NFL’s constitution, which includes an arbitration clause. In March 2023, U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni held that the NFL failed to meet its burden demonstrating that Flores entered an enforceable agreement to arbitrate; therefore, Flores could pursue his claims in federal court, while his two co-plaintiffs were required to arbitrate. The District Court denied the parties’ cross-motions for partial reconsideration of the March 2023 decision; both parties appealed. On August 14th, 2025, the second circuit panel affirmed the District Court’s order denying reconsideration, as well as the underlying March 2023 order. The second circuit held that the NFL’s arbitration provision, which grants the NFL commissioner unilateral substantive and procedural arbitrational authority over statutory claims, provides “arbitration in name only and accordingly lacks the protection of the Federal Arbitration Act.” This unilateral discretion vested in the commissioner, “the ‘principal executive officer’ of . . . [the] adverse part[y],” violates the guarantee of effective vindication of federal claims in the arbitral forum, and was therefore unenforceable.
The print edition of the issue has also been released. This post was originally published on the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution website on December 8, 2025
Cardozo Law News Brief: February 21, 2025
Full text linkHighlights from the February 21, 2025 Cardozo Law News Brief include:
Professor Jessica Roth appeared on PBS NewsHour to discuss DOJ resignations tied to the dismissal of a case involving NYC Mayor Eric Adams.
Adjunct Professor Gary Galperin spoke to Gothamist about court procedures in the Luigi Mangione case.
Derrick Hamilton, Deputy Director of the Perlmutter Center, published an op-ed in Times Union advocating for stronger discovery laws.
Professor Peter Markowitz was quoted in Gothamist and Newsweek about ICE access to protected spaces under Mayor Adams.
Professor Michael Pollack commented in Bloomberg on Denver’s new sidewalk repair fee.
Professor Edward Zelinsky’s legal challenge to New York’s remote worker tax rule was featured in TaxNotes.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/news-brief-2025/1007/thumbnail.jp
The Trump Law Firm Intimidation Policy: A Look Inside The Wreckage
No full textThe Trump Administration has engaged in what the ABA has called a Law Firm Intimidation Policy intended to change how America\u27s largest and most prestigious firms practice law.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1043/thumbnail.jp
Why It Is in the Ncaa’s Best Interests to Recognize College Athletes as Employees
No full textThe past decade has seen an onslaught of high-profile litigation against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The litigation has almost exclusively consisted of claims alleging that some of the NCAA’s policies constitute anticompetitive practices under U.S. antitrust laws. In National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, the Supreme Court ruled that, by limiting the education-related benefits schools were allowed to offer student athletes, the NCAA violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. However, the main takeaway from Alston was the concurrence by Justice Kavanaugh, which emphasized that while “the Court does not address the legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules . . . there are serious questions whether the NCAA’s compensation rules can pass muster under ordinary rule of reason scrutiny.” The NCAA saw the writing on the wall. Shortly before the Supreme Court released the Alston opinion, it amended its rules regarding athletes’ use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL). For the first time, college athletes were allowed to profit off their NIL, opening the door to new opportunities, such as personal endorsement deals with brands
Burying the Burden: A Sovereign’s Duty of Investigation Post-Republic of Turkey v. Christie’s Inc.
No full textThis Note explores the intersection of cultural heritage law and U.S. property law through the lens of Republic of Turkey v. Christie’s Inc., a significant case involving the contested ownership of the ancient Anatolian “Stargazer” figurine. The Note explores how longstanding doctrines of property and the equitable defense of laches interact with international legal frameworks and patrimony laws aimed at preserving cultural heritage material. The case underscores tensions between cultural nationalism and internationalism, sovereign ownership claims under foreign patrimony laws, and the protections afforded to good-faith purchasers under U.S. law. The Note identifies two key legal issues at play: (1) the evidentiary burden placed on source nations to assert ownership of cultural property in U.S. courts, and (2) the application of the laches defense, particularly the methods that U.S. courts employ to evaluate “inquiry notice” in the context of decades-old claims. It questions whether the Second Circuit’s decision properly elevated the investigatory obligations of source nations while minimizing the due diligence expectations placed on collectors and cultural institutions. The Note critiques the reliance on public exhibition and academic commentary as grounds for imputing knowledge to foreign states, thereby barring claims under laches. Ultimately, the Note calls for greater consistency in the application of legal standards to cultural heritage disputes, emphasizing the need for heightened scrutiny of provenance in the art market and greater accountability from cultural institutions in facilitating the return of unlawfully removed artifacts to their source nations